Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bnrgate!bigsur!bnr-rsc!bcarh185!schow
From: schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: [I forgot his name]
Message-ID: <1654@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jan 90 00:25:43 GMT
References: <51407@<1990Jan13> <29700001@inmet>
Sender: news@bnr-rsc.UUCP
Reply-To: bcarh185!schow@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 63
Summary:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <29700001@inmet> rich@inmet.inmet.com writes:
>
>Stan, why don't you losen up?  80X86 family has user mode incompatble
>instructions too.  Go look up the behavior for "PUSH SP" in the 286
>manual.

I am loose. I am loose. It's my terminal that makes me sound up-tight :-)
Really, it is just my writing style. I get everything precise, but it
sounds up-tight. Just a habit.

Bingo! "PUSH SP" is number 4 in the list of 16 differences (in the 386
book). It is also the only user level one that is not pathological. On 
the other hand, I would rate it as an even smaller problem than MOVE SR.

My respect for the net is up! There are actually several people who 
argues the facts of a case. 

Before you accuse me of inconsistancy, recall that I was talking about
the approaches to handling bugs and some people denied *existence* of
the MOVE SR bug.

>
>The 386 protected mode (the "native" 32 bits mode) is definitely not 
>compatible with the 286 protected mode.  Check your facts, will you.

On this one, you may be misinformed:

  "In general, programs designed for execution in protected mode on an
   80286 executes without modificationon the 80386, because the features
   of the 80286 are a subset of those of the 80386.

  "All the descriptors used by the 80286 are supported by the 80386 as
   long as the Intel-reserved word (last word) of the 80286 descriptor
   is zero."

  Page 13-1 in "80386 Programmer's Reference Manual".

The only other differences described are pathological cases.


>
>Get a life.  More programs break when you switch to a FASTER processor
>than a new processor.  Does that mean we should only use the slower mode?
>Who should we blame then?  Perhaps you would be happy if the PC world still
>uses a 4.77 MHz 8088.

Me? Not a chance, I already have my 24 MHz /386 and I am building the
Lucas/Frances boards. :-) This is in addition to the unique custom made
expansion chasis with DMA harddisk and memory cards for my Amiga 1000.
(Okay, I exaggerate, there are a total of *six* ever made but I do have 
the only nice platic front cover).

>Get the facts straight.  Look at the REAL world.  You probably hang around
>your work place too much.  Don't be so stuffy eh?

I do have the facts straight. But you (and Tom) are right, I should stop
taunting and teasing.


Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
(613) 763-2831		     ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh185
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.